In the beginning of 8th grade, I read Zen in the Art of Writing. While reading it, I got a crazy idea- of an ambassador who kills people with salt, by pouring it into their dinner when they're not looking. The ambassador never got caught. The title was, and still is, "The Salt Murders"
Later on, I decided to have the US President killed instead with poisonous salt, so the first line went, "On September 11, 2001, the President of the US was killed." It was supposed to be an alternate scenario of September 11th, to make people wonder, "Could it have been worse?"
When my art teacher (and homeroom teacher) told me about this short story contest, I decided to submit "The Salt Murders" because I was already working on it. My English teacher and I went through about three drafts, and I enjoyed the story, because it had suspense, and life! I heard the narrator in my head, a nameless killer who sounded like a woman, though it could be a man for all you know! Even I don't know the name of the person who killed the President with poisonous salt. I prefer to keep it that way.
Sadly, my homeroom teacher dropped a bomb on me during break one day- the English teachers and school director had read the story and found the content inappropriate. I thought it was ridiculous- who ever heard of poisonous salt?- but due to the infamous Patriot Act, I could be arrested just for writing that. I decided, as revenge, to submit an essay on censorship.
I'm not mad at Ray. I am in his debt for giving me the idea. It was so cool, and I wouldn't have gotten it if I hadn't read Zen.
No, I'm mad at the "book-burners" in the world who decide that people are terrorists for writing fiction set in the modern world. For now, the story will unfortunately have to wait, but I'm proud of it, like a proud mother.
To all those writers who are worried about what to write, don't worry! Write what you want! It doesn't matter what other people say about it (about sex, religion or violence) as long as it means a lot to you. The teachers aren't always right. Trust your own instincts.

Wow, I don't know what to say. (But when has that ever stopped me before?) McCarthyism didn't last forever, but it's certainly a safe bet that the world changed forever following September 11! The question is which changes will remain in place as at least long-term, if not permanent, aspects of everyday life?

One of the things that struck me about the rapidity and completeness of this change was that TV Land had been running this ad campaign to promote "Get Smart" featuring "the president of the United States, disguised as a dolphin" because a terrorist group had targeted him. It was run ad nauseum like many of their ads, and ended with the dolphin/president saying, "God Bless America." You never saw any ad disappear so fast! They continued to run "Get Smart," but certain episodes struck so differently after September 11 than they had before.

Some rules, of course, were in place long before September 11. For instance, during the Nixon administration, some drunk in a bar in some godforsaken little excuse for civilization in the midwest mouthed off about Nixon in a threatening way and got a visit from the F. B. I.! And Nixon was so unpopular it gives one pause to wonder how many people must have expressed similar sentiments. Yet, the movie "Taxi Driver" was released, which resulted in President Reagan being seriously injured, and would have been killed if not for the intervention of a brave secret service agent.

It seems to me like some of these new rules are like "pick on the little guy." Like, some lady was turned off a plane flight for having nail clippers, and people can't write a check for postage stamps without a driver's license, even if they've lived in the community for decades and never been in any trouble! What do postage stamps have to do with terrorism, and if they did, wouldn't the terrorists just pay cash for them? It seems to me like trying to create a false sense of security by inconveniencing everyone enough. What do others think?

What I think doesn't matter in reference to thos board. Do we really want to open up a thread to arguments about racial profiling, etc? What would be interesting to know is where Bradbury himself stands on things like the Patriot Act. Many aspects of the Patriot Act are simply not as draconian as some critics make it out to be; but I have to guess that Bradbury would be pretty uncomfortable with the idea of the FBI being able to go back in and get check-out records from libraries, and things like that. On the other hand, every new power granted the government in the Patriot Act that intrudes on a previous right is subject to prior judicial review. In other words, the FBI/CIA/NSA have to convince a judge that the information warrants an intrusion on a previous right. Generally speaking, under the Patriot Act, the FBI can't simply walk into a library on a whim and demand these records. There are restrictions on them similar to search warrants. Many of the Patriot Act's elements involve banking issues (to track money being supplied to terrorists) and issues of communications between various law enforcement agencies (many of the previous limitations were simply stupid and inefficient). I wonder if Sam or Patrick have insights into Bradbury's position(s) on this.

Your story actually sounds quite genius. Do you think you could send it to me or something (everlong_seraph@hotmail.com)? Don't worry - it'll get out there somehow, even if you can't submit it to a contest. By starting a controversy, you've already won - even if it's not what you set out to do at first. I'd be more proud of a story if it got censored actually. A little ticked, but proud.

Dandelion - I agree with you. Some security outlines are outrageous. Granted, a lot of it is completely worthwhile, but many measures go too far.

[ oh, and nice reference to the "book burners" ]

Sadly, I've lost my only copy of the story, so I'll have to retype it up. I'm going to do that osmeday, but not right now.

Well, I find your story interesting. The Patriot Act says nothing about short stories. It just maybe ignorant psuedo-patriotic people who after 9/11 didn't want anything bad said about Bush. Remember at the time his approval rating was in the high 90's. But the Patriot Act doesn't have anything to do with stuff like that. They may have thought it was innapropiate, which is a reasonable argument (though I don't agree with it) but it has nothing to do with 9/11 or the Patriot Act. I've read through it several times. And I do know that Ray Bradbury is a Republican. Read Fahrenheit 451 (The 50 year edition paper back, the cheap one) and the after ward and the interview. Also He was upset at Michael Moore for his documentary "Fahrenheit 911" because of the title. He is a conservative. OH, also He gets act about "loosing rights" after 9/11 in the interview at the end of the book. And he says He's not scared because everybody is watching each other. Hope I provided some knowledge.

Patriot Act or not, the internet is making any real enforcement of censorship, say like in 1950's former Russian satellite countries, a thing of the past, and impossible to enforce.

They don't call it the 'Information Age' for nothing..

Have hope.

Man, I can't believe I missed out on this discussion. Catching up on some of the postings I missed out on while I was out of town and it looks like I missed a perfectly good oppurtunity to jump right in the middle of a censorship fray.

Sigh.

Well, if it's not too late: Some censorship good, unfettered freedom bad, no real censorship in the United States, book burnings in Cuba, etc.

There. I think I hit the high points. I feel much better now, thank you very much.

Best,

Pete

Not related to this topic, but how do I get my "location" to appear at the bottom of my posts? I imagine it has something to do with my "profile" ?

By the by, Mr. Blevins, I'm a former Seattle-ite. Love the Pacific Northwest!

Yes, it is in the profile (location)

Couldn't find "location" anywhere. Must be missing something...